Two Fathers Personify Issues in Israel’s Shin Bet Case : Jewish, Arab Petitioners Each Lost a Son; Supreme Court Hears Final Arguments

Two last-minute petitioners seemed to personify the issues at stake as Israel’s Supreme Court on Sunday heard final arguments in the case of two Palestinian prisoners killed by the Shin Bet security police after their capture in a 1984 bus hijacking.

One of the petitioners, a Jew, is the father of a man killed seven years ago in another terrorist incident. If it hadn’t been for the Shin Bet, Israel’s equivalent of the FBI, his son’s murderer would never have been caught, said Azriel Barak, 64. Those now trying to prosecute its agents “are working against the foundations of the nation,” Barak added.

The other petitioner, an Arab, is the father of one of the two slain Palestinians. Shehadeh abu Jame said he believes that his son was a passenger on the ill-fated bus, not a hijacker. And even if it is proven otherwise, Abu Jame added, it is a violation of Israeli and international law that the 18-year-old was beaten to death while a prisoner.

Courtroom Drama

The appearance of the two lent drama to a four-hour courtroom session Sunday that otherwise shed little new light on a case that has threatened Israel’s fragile coalition government since it burst into public view in May.

It concerns the hijacking of a civilian Israeli bus in April, 1984, by four young Palestinians. In a subsequent rescue raid, Israeli security forces killed two Arabs, but two others were captured alive and later beaten to death in a nearby field.

Four officials of Shin Bet have already admitted in court documents that they were involved in ordering the killings and in a subsequent cover-up of the agency’s role in the affair.

The high court has been asked to rule on the legality of presidential pardons granted to the four officers and also on whether an official judicial inquiry should be ordered. Sunday’s were the final arguments on those petitions, but the three-judge panel is not expected to hand down its decision for several days.

A ‘Noisy Minority’

Entering the case on the side of the Shin Bet officials, petitioner Barak, a lawyer, contended that only a “noisy minority” is against the pardons.

“Where were you when my son was killed?” he shouted at one point at attorney Michal Shaked, who represents 12 law professors from Tel Aviv and Hebrew universities who want the pardons overturned.

Uriel Barak, then 34, and his wife, Hadassah, were shotgunned to death Feb. 27, 1979, by Mohammed Shubaki, a Palestinian who later told his captors that he killed the couple “because they were Jews.”

Azriel Barak, a Tel Aviv attorney, has waged a personal war against terrorism ever since, serving at present as chairman of a committee composed of the families of terrorist victims. He said the group seeks imposition of the death penalty against Arabs who murder Jews.

Freed in Prisoner Swap

Barak said his son’s killer was released in a prisoner exchange last year after serving less than three years for his crime.

Nonetheless, Barak added, he is grateful to the Shin Bet because if it had not been for the security agency, his son’s killer would never have been punished. And he said he is confident that a great majority of Israelis agree with him that the pardons in the 1984 case were proper.

As for the four Palestinians, Barak said in an interview: “I’m glad that they have been killed. They came with one intent--to kill as many Jews as possible. That’s the only way to fight them (terrorists)--to kill them the minute you see one.”

He said he didn’t notice Shehadeh abu Jame in court Sunday. If he had, he added, “I would have spit on him if I could (as a substitute for) spitting on the face of his dead son.”

Claim Called ‘Cynical’

Barak called Jame’s contention that his son was an innocent passenger on the bus “more than cynical.” The two teen-age Palestinians who were killed while under arrest were friends of the two slain at the climax of the security police rescue assault. All four were from the same village in the Israeli-occupied Gaza Strip.

Shehadeh abu Jame and Mohammed Abdullah abu Jame, the uncle of the other slain Arab prisoner, appeared to be the only two Palestinians in the courtroom Sunday. Both wore traditional Arab kaffiyeh head coverings.

“They were so alone,” their attorney, Felicia Langer, commented. “It was something very strange.”

A Language Problem

Neither man speaks or understands Hebrew, and they did not grasp what was happening in the courtroom until she explained the proceedings to them later, said Langer, an Israeli Communist Party member who often defends Palestinians. “They asked me: ‘All those people were for our children?’ ”

The two Arab petitioners, both retired manual laborers, want the pardons for the four Shin Bet officers overruled and an investigation into the case ordered by the court. Otherwise, according to their petition, they fear a “whitewash.”

Langer argued that the Geneva Conventions prevent a ruling power from disclaiming responsibility for the killing of prisoners. “The President, therefore, cannot grant pardons that would exempt the Shin Bet men from violations of the Geneva Conventions,” she contended.

Police Inquiry Begins

Meanwhile, Atty. Gen. Yosef Harish told the court Sunday that a police investigation into responsibility for ordering both the killings and the cover-up has already begun. “The probe will be unhindered and will include every level, from the lowest field (level) to the highest political echelons,” Harish pledged.

Voting along partisan lines a week ago, the Israeli Cabinet rejected by a 14-11 vote a motion to order a full-scale judicial inquiry into the affair, setting the stage for a police inquiry. However, those petitioning the Supreme Court fear that the government could still stop the police investigation for political reasons unless the court preempts such a move.